From: To: Subject: Rivers-List: RE: Survey on Fishways Date: 28 April 2000 17:11 Year 2000 international survey on fishways (Apologies for cross postings) 28 April 2000 Dear Colleagues Re: Year 2000 international survey on fishways An international survey on fishways is being conducted with the purpose of generating information that will influence the direction of future research on fishways. The survey is intended for people with experience with, and opinions, on fishways, including: biologists, engineers, researchers, catchment managers, and flow regulators. If you fit this criteria, your participation in the survey would be beneficial and is encouraged. The survey is being conducted by myself in conjunction with Lindsay White, a graduate student from the Co-operative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Australia. We are aiming for a high proportion of responses from those with experience with, and opinions, on fishways. As you will see on the survey form below, the survey covers: * important factors that you believe have caused the decline of native migrating fish; * why you think that fishways sometimes do not work effectively; * your views on the assessment of fishways; * tools when designing fishways (if you are a designer); * your preferred fishway type; and * your views on the relative importance of research topics on fishways. This survey has been designed to be rapid for you to fill in - about 15 minutes of your time is all we request. For your convenience, the survey form can be filled in and submitted by email (to whitelj@dfo-mpo.gc.ca). (Please do not respond to the list server!!) Alternatively, if you choose, the survey form could be submitted by FAX (+1 204 984 2402, c/o Chris Katopodis). We hope to receive all responses to the survey by 26 May 2000. For your information, an explanatory statement with details of the conduct of the survey is also below. You are encouraged to take a moment to read it prior to filling in the survey form. We look forward to your participation in this survey, and to learning from the results. Yours truly, Chris Katopodis, P.Eng. Telephone: 204 983 5181 FAX: 204 984 2402 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& ***** YEAR 2000 INTERNATIONAL SURVEY ON FISHWAYS - EXPLANATORY STATEMENT ON SURVEY CONDUCT ***** 1. This survey is being conducted by the following researchers: * Chris Katopodis (Regional Habitat Engineer, Fisheries and Oceans Canada); and * Lindsay White (a graduate student from the Co-operative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Australia). 2. The purpose of this survey is to provide information that will influence the direction of future fishway research. 3. Your involvement in this survey is voluntary, and you may choose to not submit the survey form or not answer some questions. 4. Only combined statistical results will be published. In this way, the anonymity of respondents will be protected. 5. Following the processing, results of the survey will be available from the researchers via email. The researchers will email each respondent to advise that the results are available. 6. Chris Katopodis will be responsible for storing the completed survey forms securely at the Freshwater Institute in Winnipeg for 3 years following the survey. Lindsay White will be responsible for storing the completed survey forms securely at Monash University until the end of his PhD candidature (nominally December 2001), at which time they will be destroyed. 7. There is no financial reward for either the researchers or the participants of the survey. 8. The preferred way to return respones is by email to whitelj@dpo-mpo.gc.ca, by 26 May 2000. Alternatively the survey form could be submitted by FAX (+1 204 984 2402, c/o Chris Katopodis). &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& ***** YEAR 2000 INTERNATIONAL SURVEY ON FISHWAYS - SURVEY FORM ***** SECTION 1. PRELIMINARY INFORMATION **** 1.1. For how many fishways have you been involved with the planning, design, operation, or assessment during the last ten years? [Please place a 'X' in one set of brackets.] 20 or more fishways...............(....) 10 - 19 fishways......................(....) 5 - 9 fishways........................(....) 2 - 4 fishways........................(....) Less than 2 fishways............(....) (If you have been involved with less than 2 surveys, please disregard the rest of this survey). 1.2. For how many years have you been involved in the planning, design, operation, or assessment of fishways? [Please place a 'X' in one set of brackets.] 20 or more years...................(....) 10 - 19 years...........................(....) 5 - 9 years...............................(....) 0 - 4 years..............................(....) 1.3. What is your profession? [Please place a 'X' in at least one set of brackets.] Biologist.....................................(....) Engineer.....................................(....) Flow regulator / hydrologist ..(....) Other (please specify).........(....) 1.4. In what continent(s) are you currently, or have you been, involved in the planning, design, operation, or assessment of fishways? [Please place a 'X' in at least one set of brackets.] South America...........................(....) Europe.........................................(....) Australasia.................................(....) Africa..........................................(....) Asia.............................................(....) North America............................(....) 1.5. Which groupings of migrating fish have you considered in the planning, design, operation, or assessment of fishways? [Please place a 'X' in at least one set of brackets.] Anadromous...............................(....) Catadromous...............................(....) Amphidromous...........................(....) Potamodromous..........................(....) 1.6. Please identify the types of fishways that you have been directly involved with. [Please place a 'X' in at least one set of brackets.] Denil............................................(....) Vertical slot................................(....) Fish lock / elevator...................(....) Rock ramp..................................(....) Pool and weir.............................(....) Bypass channel (including those with pools and riffles)........(....) Pool and orifice.........................(....) Other (please specify.........)...(....) 1.7. Are you more or less confident than you were 10 years ago that fishways can be designed and operated effectively to allow passage of migrating fish species? [Please place a 'X' in one set of brackets.] Unsure........................................(....) Less confident...........................(....) More confident.........................(....) Equally as confident ................(....) SECTION 2. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS THAT HAVE CAUSED THE DECLINE OF NATIVE FISH**** 2.1. Has there been a decline of most species of native migrating fish in the catchments/watersheds that you have worked in over the last 30 years? [Please place a 'X' in one set of brackets.] Yes...................................................................(....) No (please proceed to question 3.1)...........(....) Unsure.............................................................(....) 2.2. How important has 'the interruption to migrating pathways by instream artificial barriers' been as a factor in the decline of native migrating fish in your catchment / watershed? [Please place a 'X' in one set of brackets.] Unsure............................................(....) A minor factor................................(....) The major factor (please proceed to question 3.1).....(....) Not a factor.....................................(....) One major factor of several..........(....) 2.3. What other factors are likely to be more important than 'the interruption to migrating pathways by instream artificial barriers' in the decline of native migrating fish in your catchment? [Please identify as many factors as appropriate.] Factor: ....................................................... Factor: ....................................................... Factor: ....................................................... Factor: ....................................................... SECTION 3. WHY FISHWAYS SOMETIMES DO NOT WORK EFFECTIVELY**** 3.1. In your experience, which are the most common reasons why fishways sometimes do not work as intended? [Please rank from 1 - the most common reason.] Lack of maintenance..............................................(....) Entrance and exit conditions were inappropriate........(....) Hydraulic conditions within the fishway were outside the limits of migrating fish.................(....) Variability of flow, or of upstream and downstream water level........................................(....) Lack of monitoring and assessment..............................(....) Migration within the fishway was curtailed by behavioural responses of fish....................................(....) Other (please specify......................)............(....) Not applicable or unsure...........................(....) SECTION 4. TOOLS WHEN DESIGNING FISHWAYS **** (If you do not design fishways, please proceed to section 5.) 4.1. Do you use an expert system as a support tool when designing fishways? [Please place a 'X' in one set of brackets.] Yes.................................................................(....) No..................................................................(....) 4.2. If so, which expert system(s) do you use? [Please identify as many as appropriate.] .................................................... 4.3. Do you use design guidelines (eg. guidelines for natural channel design when designing bypass channel fishways) as a support tool when designing fishways? [Please place a 'X' in one set of brackets.] Yes...............................................(....) No.................................................(....) 4.4. If so, which design guidelines do you use? [Please identify as many as appropriate.] ....................................................... 4.5. What information do you use for characterising the burst, prolonged and/or sustained swimming ability of target fishes when designing fishways? [Please place a 'X' in at least one set of brackets.] Swimming data for the target fish species........................(....) Swimming data from another member of the same family as the target fish species...............................(....) Swimming data for fishes with the same swimming mode as the target species ..........................(....) Other (please nominate........................)................(....) 4.6. When you design fishways, for which of the following cases do you usually design for? [Please place a 'X' in one set of brackets.] To allow passage of a target species that has the poorest swimming ability of any native fish that will attempt to use the fishway......(....) To allow the passage of one target species that is thought to be the most important by stakeholders (eg. commercial fisheries, recreational groups).........................(....) To allow passage of all native fish but to exclude alien / introduced fish.................................................(....) Other (please specify...............................)......(....) 4.7. The current practice in fishway design in your region is to allow passage of what percentage of a target migrating fish species that accumulate downstream of an artificial instream obstruction? [Please nominate percentage.] ...........................................% 4.8. When designing fishways, which do you consider to be the major determinant of whether a fishway entrance will be located by the majority of migrating fish? [Please place a 'X' in one set of brackets.] Proportion of total flow passing through the fishway.......(....) Positioning of the fishway entrance..................(....) Local turbulence and/or noise generated at the fishway entrance......................................(....) Other (please specify..........................)............(....) SECTION 5. ASSESSMENT OF FISHWAYS**** 5.1. Approximately what proportion of fishways that you have been involved with have been assessed biologically during at least 3 fish migration seasons for a total of at least 3 months? [Please place a 'X' in one set of brackets.] 0 - 15%................(....) 16 - 30%..............(....) 31 - 60%..............(....) 61 - 100%............(....) 5.2. During the last 5 years, for approximately what proportion of fishways that you have been involved with has video technology been used as a tool during assessment? [Please place a 'X' in one set of brackets.] 0 - 15%................(....) 16 - 30%..............(....) 31 - 60%..............(....) 61 - 100%............(....) 5.3. For what purpose(s) has video technology been used in the assessment of fishways that you have been involved with? [Please place a 'X' in at least one set of brackets.] Monitoring of numbers of fish passing through fishway...........(....) Observation of fish behaviour at the exit of the fishway............(....) Observations on fish behaviour within fishways.........(....) Identification of species moving through the fishway...............(....) Observation of fish behaviour at the entrance to the fishway..(....) Other (please specify...................)....(....) 5.4. Based on past assessments, what percentage of a target migrating fish species that accumulate downstream of an artificial instream obstruction typically can migrate through a fishway? [Please specify percentage.] ....................................................% SECTION 6. PREFERRED FISHWAY TYPES **** 6.1. For the cases in which you have selected a preferred fishway type, which of the following have been the most important determinants of fishway type within the selection process? [Please rank from 1 - the most important factor.] Cost...........................(....) Naturalness..............................(....) Frequency of maintenance....................(....) Perceived effectiveness of fishway type for passing migrating fishes.............................(....) Local site conditions......................(....) Water use.............................(....) Aesthetics......................................(....) Average water level difference across the fishway.......(....) Availability of electricity at the fishway...........(....) Water level variation across the fishway.........(....) Other (please specify.........................) .......(....) Not applicable.......................(....) 6.2. Assume that you are asked for an opinion on which fishway type should be used at an artificial instream obstruction with an average difference in water level of 1 m. What types of fishway are you most likely to prefer? [Please rank from 1 - your first preference.] Denil............................................(....) Vertical slot................................(....) Fish lock / elevator...................(....) Rock ramp..................................(....) Pool and weir.............................(....) Bypass channel (including those with pools and riffles)....(....) Pool and orifice.........................(....) Other (please nominate.....................)...(....) 6.3. Assume that you are asked for an opinion on which fishway type should be used at an artificial instream obstruction with an average difference in water level of 4 m. What types of fishway are you most likely to prefer? [Please rank from 1 - your first preference.] Denil............................................(....) Vertical slot................................(....) Fish lock / elevator...................(....) Rock ramp..................................(....) Pool and weir.............................(....) Bypass channel (including those with pools and riffles)........(....) Pool and orifice.........................(....) Other (please specify.....................)...(....) 6.4. Assume that you are asked for an opinion on which fishway type should be used at an artificial instream obstruction with an average difference in water level of 7 m. What types of fishway are you most likely to prefer? [Please rank from 1 - your first preference.] Denil............................................(....) Vertical slot................................(....) Fish lock / elevator...................(....) Rock ramp..................................(....) Pool and weir.............................(....) Bypass channel (including those with pools and riffles)........(....) Pool and orifice.........................(....) Other (please specify.....................)...(....) SECTION 7. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF POSSIBLE RESEARCH TOPICS ON FISHWAYS **** 7.1. Please rank the following possible fishway research topics in accordance with their importance. [Please rank from 1 - the most important topic.] Assessing relative performance of different fishway types.......(....) Technologies to exclude alien fish (ie. not native to a stream) from using fishways......................(....) Downstream passage of fish through fishways......(....) Hydraulic conditions within fishways (depth, velocity, turbulence distributions)....................(....) Entrance and exit conditions adjacent to fishways (including tidal conditions)................(....) Minimising the cost of fishways................(....) The swimming abilities of native migrating fishes with respect to fishways .....................(....) The behavioural characteristics of native migrating fishes with respect to local turbulence.....................................(....) Development of monitoring tools and techniques.......(....) Impacts of dam removal on the fish community............(....) The behavioural characteristics of native migrating fishes with respect to crowding within fishways ...........................(....) Other (please specify........................).............(....) OPTIONAL: CONTACT DETAILS**** If you would like to provide your contact details please do so below. Name Organisation Address Telephone number Fax number Email address OPTIONAL: ADDITIONAL COMMENTS**** If you would like to provide any additional comments, please do so below. THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING IN THIS SURVEY!! PLEASE RETURN THIS SURVEY FORM BY EMAIL (whitelj@dpo-mpo.gc.ca or FAX (+1 204 984 2402, c/o Chris Katopodis) BY 26 MAY 2000.